#which doesn't mean it's not radical! it is radical! but i don't think it's as gender-nonconformist as it seems to a modern eye.

[radfemcroatia]

Anyways I'm getting tired of this debate, but I noticed I never responded to this and I really want to.

"As someone participating in 4B I don't think I'm preaching NAM bullshit lmao."

There are multiple het-partnered radfems who have in fact done that under this post. And honestly? Just the action of willingly being with a man is accepting it's NAM, because if you believed otherwise you would have never gotten into a relationship.

"Yes labels shouldn't lose meanings but you're literally changing the meaning of radfem to "celibate feminists"."

No I'm not. I'm changing it into a woman who walks away from men/patriarchy. Lesbians and febfems obviously don't have to be celibate.

"So radfems who actively fighting against trafficking, getting out women and girls out of prostitution, pushing for better policies for sex-based protections, are not radfems if they're het-partnered?"

Yes? I already explained why in multiple of my responses. Radical feminism is a fight to dismantle the patriarchy, but you can do all these things you named and instead of fighting to build a new system, you instead fight to improve women's conditions under current system. Which is of course good, but not radical.

"Even though they do more things irl and more well read in radical feminist theories than bunch of Tumblr bloggers? Again there are so much more things to do as radfems other than blogging and being celibate."

Why are y'all again assuming all het-partnered "radfems" do so much more for women than separatists? Is their work more valuable? Do lesbians, febfems and celibate women not volunteer and help women irl? Yes there is so much more things to do other than just blogging, but that doesn't change anything I said. We are all just Tumblr bloggers here so idk why you even bring it up. Imo reading radfem lit and even writing your own means nothing if you end up with a man anyways.

I understand going 4b is difficult for many women, and we should be patient with them, but I do not like how they responded to original post, and I don't understand how some 4b women respond like this either. I will certainly not expand the definition of radfem to accommodate women who are able to, but refuse to live by our principles. I can tolerate many things, but willingly partnering with a man is like the most anti-radical decision you could make.

Also can you explain what point you were trying to make with "misogynists still have wives"? 💀

why do self proclaimed radical feminists still choose to date men? do you think you are the exception? do you think you’ve found the needle in the haystack? do you think all of the women who were abused, assaulted, killed, had their children killed, assaulted, abused, kidnapped, etc. all thought this would happen? sure, many of them may look back and see the signs after the fact, but it still happened.

i feel like if you’re mature enough to be a radical feminist, you wouldn’t have that “i am the exception” mindset. you wouldn’t be seeing all of these horrific things happening and go “this only ever happens to the women on the internet and on the news!!!” because, no, that could happen to you or your loved ones.. and chances are it already has, and it will again in the future.

why not just prevent it from happening entirely? separatism is the ONLY solution. your boyfriend is NOT the exception.

[greenerteacups]

Hi GT! I want to start off by saying that I am constantly in awe of your storytelling, and I hope to one day become half the writer that you are. Thank you for sharing your gift with us.

One of my favourite things about your characterisation of Draco and Hermione is your depiction of their flaws. I’m not so sure where exactly I’m getting at with this ask — because I want to know everything about this story — but I’m very curious about your thought process in picking and choosing which traits or flaws they exhibit in canon then expanding them in Lionheart, and how you think these flaws have influenced Draco and Hermione’s relationship with each other.

You're so lovely to say so, thank you! Thank you for your generous words, they're a great honor and a kindness.

Canonically, Hermione is a proud, stubborn, smug, hotheaded know-it-all. She has a wee bit of a god complex, which has been reinforced by constantly succeeding in crackpot plans to outwit the adults around her, and she's also easily frustrated by inefficiency, which swiftly radicalizes her once she gets a look at how the Ministry works. She's dismissive, insecure, snobby, tone-deaf, and has a complicated relationship with "other girls." I also adore her with the heat of one million billion suns. I love the parts of the books where Hermione bitches out Ron for something, like, fully reasonable, because girls in fantasy so rarely get to be straight-up wrong about shit. Let girls be nasty! Let girls be mean! Let girls be flawed callous forgetful people who regret it and try to be better! Let girls have actual character arcs, man!!

And then Draco, Brat Prince of Rich City, has a full suite of flaws that compliment Hermione's. He's a proud, stubborn, smug, hotheaded rich boy. He has a god complex because his family's never let him fail at anything. He's dismissive, snobby, patently un-empathetic, and he looks down on basically everyone because he grew up at the top of his social food chain.

So when you put them together, you get this weird nucleus of snobby arrogance, and they don't fix each other, to be clear (in many ways they make each other worse!), but they PEMDAS cancel out a lot of the worst manifestations of each other's flaws. Like, Draco lacks empathy because he doesn't tend to give a shit about other people, which is not Hermione's problem. Hermione passionately gives a shit about, like, every single thing on the planet. When he's around Hermione in Lionheart, he immediately gets swept up in other people's problems, and after a while he reluctantly develops the habit of giving a shit about them, at least insofar as Hermione gives a shit about them. Hermione, meanwhile, is at her nastiest whenever someone accidentally triggers one of her insecurities, e.g. her intelligence or her pride or her poor social skills. Draco, on the other hand, is not really insecure at all; he thinks he's the hottest shit to ever breathe. So when she's around him, he naturally gives her the affirmation of being wanted and prioritized and liked for who she is by someone with a lot of confidence and social capital (as she perceives it; Draco from Hermione's POV is a lot less #cringefail than he is in his own, as would be the case for anybody. By the way, more people should talk about how incredibly hard to make someone look cool when you're writing in their head, and they literally never get to play off their mistakes).

When she has someone who genuinely would rather hang out with her than any other person at Hogwarts, Hermione doesn't feel so much like she's third-wheeling of the Ron/Harry soulmate bromance, which chills her out some. And then she also gets the reassurance that her evil morally grey plots and schemes are in fact 100% justified and smart, even though she knows Draco isn't maybe the best judge of that, which she also feels guilty about, but not enough to stop. And then Draco gets the reassurance of someone who's self-righteous definitely 100% Good and Just, Hermione, caring for him. Is this healthy? Who knows. Is this good in the long run? Who can say! But it does satisfy my brain worms on the subject.

[musical-chick-13]

Genuinely I cannot take the phrase "de-centering men" seriously anymore.

[mangled-by-disuse]

Tried to put this in the replies, but it got long and is relevant to the OP, so:

Less so than the average British/South African white guy of his time, which is to say: yes, but not notably so.

He did also speak very bluntly in his response to the Nazi requests to translate his work, claiming he would have been proud to be a genuine Aryan [that is, from the Indian subcontinent] but unfortunately he's just German and English. Some of that is "Oxford fellow thinks he's being very smart" rhetorical devices, but he also does seem to have been pretty vocally of the belief that different cultures and ethnicities held value, and while he left South Africa very young and considered himself English, he did also remark on the brutality and inhumanity of the apartheid regime there. He also criticised C.S. Lewis' assertion (in The Last Battle) that some people couldn't get into heaven on the basis of race and culture, but "have a theological argument with C.S. Lewis" does seem to have been one of his primary hobbies at the time so idk if that was purely anti-racist.

At the same time: this was at a time when the N-word was in common parlance (including in children's nursery rhymes and even in leftist discourse), when Britain had an empire and Tolkien had been raised in one of its colonies, and when the school system emphasised "the white man's burden" and the savagery and primitivism of "lesser" cultures. And Tolkien was not a radical, and not sufficiently concerned with race as a topic to break fully from that social conditioning. So it's not like he wasn't a racist, but he wasn't a racist by the standards of his time, background, and immediate environment. (Bearing in mind that his immediate environment was the same one that saw the rise of Oswald Mosley and Winston Churchill.)

What Tolkien WAS was a genuine, old-school British conservative, which I think is what right-wingers pick up on in his work. He had an engrained belief in hierarchy and traditionalism, and his arguments against capitalism come from Catholic semi-feudalism, not socialism. "The rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate/God made them high and lowly and each to his estate" is very much an underpinning of a lot of Tolkien's work, which emphasises the importance of working to, and being satisfied with, your status in life - Sam's strength is his humility and desire to be a simple gardener, but, while humility remains valuable throughout, Aragorn's strength is that he knows that he is born to be King. Ruling is all he can ever ethically do (noticeably, whether or not his people consent to be ruled - note that the first Man of Gondor he comes into contact with is Boromir, whose response of "ok mate where the fuck have you been when we were fighting and dying for the past forty years?", and that is cast as a mistake on Boromir's part, and he is told to sit down and respect the rightful king by Literal Voice Of The Gods Gandalf), and it would be wrong and evil for him to try to do anything else, just as it would be a moral wrong for Sam to try to be a king.

Lord of the Rings in particular is very concerned with noblesse oblige and the burdens of power - while, yes, the core story is "minor gentry [Sam is the only actual working-class character] rises above his presumed station and, through being literally and metaphorically one of the little people of the world, slips under the radar and completes a heroic quest", almost all the surrounding stories are about the difficult duty of managing power. And, unfortunately, this lends itself very readily to a "white man's burden" kind of reading - these people, you see, are simply of superior race (literally, in the case of the Elves, and in the case of Aragorn, Boromir, and the ruling class of Gondor being measured by their proximity to Númenorean bloodlines), and so it is their unfortunate duty to command and to cleanse the lesser (Orcish, and by extension Easterling and Haradrim) races from their nice, functional societies.

To be clear: I do not think this is how Tolkien intended it. I think, in his own traditionalist, cloistered-academic, Catholic way, he was pretty egalitarian. He doesn't treat the ruling class as actually better than the working class - Sam is no less a hero than Frodo, Merry, and Pippin, all of whom are gentry or nobility, and none of them are lesser as people than Aragorn or Elrond or even Gandalf or Galadriel - even if he does view class distinctions as fundamental and immutable differences. He values friendship, peace, and the laying down of grudges (against all the problems caused by revenge, note that Éomer's first and most noble act of kingship is "accepting the Dunlendings' surrender, treating them kindly, and making peace with them", and they are so impressed by this that they too put aside a centuries-long war and help rebuild the country they helped to destroy). While he often forgets that women exist (I will die on the hill that "three out of 22 rulers of Númenor were women, despite equal inheritance being explicit" is evidence that Tolkien just did not think of women as being half the population), he is quick to defend their value in both masculine and feminine pursuits, and to express them as people outside of marriage and childbearing - and his own life, in which he married a much older divorcée from a different religious background against all voices from their families, reflects that same sense of valuing women on human terms. He is a humanist, not in the religious sense but in the sense that he values humanity above all things in his writing; he writes consistently against power for its own sake, against war as glory, and against bigotry and condemnation.

BUT

he was also a traditional, dyed-in-the-wool Tory, Catholic-restorationist, pro-feudal Oxford don who was raised in a much more conservative time, place, and social class than most of us, and he brings that to his writing too. From a conservative perspective, reading with an eye for right-wing ideas:

Éowyn ultimately turns from the aberration of being a warrior and becomes a wife and mother, embracing "feminine" traits of healing and caring as part of her own healing.

Class is reified through Sam's heroism being that of a servant, and Aragorn's that of a king, and the return of the king is the source of great rejoicing.

Some races, and some classes, are simply better at things. Dwarves are better craftsmen. Men are better warriors. Elves are better at everything because they're special. they are also tall and fair and European

The idyllic Shire is a cottagecore dream of traditional British rural life, in which people know their place, women are real women, and everyone has good manners.

Most of the "good" societies are coded with European or Classical trappings (the exception is actually Gondor, which is pretty easily read as Byzantine), and opposed against a literal rampaging horde from the East. Some of the horde from the East are literally inhuman, while others are elephant-riding brutes who hold oblique historical grudges and strange religious customs. Compassion against these foreign invaders is looked upon favourably by the narrative, but only after you've killed them.

With the previous point, and the films, in mind, it is easy to conclude that regardless of species diversity, the Fellowship is a cadre of brave white men fighting to protect their society from a monstrous foreign threat - one in which a cunning trickster from within the main setting has puppeted the less evolved races into destroying Western civilisation.

While the story is anti-war, it is anti-war in a way that allows for cool battle scenes and noble deaths, and there are several points at which Dying For A Cause is lionised and seen as redemptive in a way that slots nicely into a lot of more militaristic ideologies (including fascism).

again, I cannot underline enough, I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS IS A FAIR READING OF THE NARRATIVE. I think it's an ideologically-motivated reading that ignores both Tolkien's personal views and large chunks of the text. But the thing is: the people who read it in the way I've described would probably say the same thing of your description.

The thing about Tolkien's much-discussed distaste for intentional allegory is: Lord of the Rings is not 1984. It is not an explicit political polemic. It is one man unpacking his Great War trauma and political anxieties, his expertise in Anglo-Saxon literature, his special interests in folklore and etymology, his love of the English countryside and his dislike of modernity, his Catholicism and his conservatism and his egalitarianism and his loneliness and his loves. It is not absolute in its politics, because it isn't trying to give you a political solution: it's trying to give you morals, yes, but they're as much personal ones as societal ones.

It is not a shock that right-wingers latch onto Tolkien's work, or see parts of their beliefs reflected there. It's still a fucking insult to the work, but it's not a shock.

Seeing conservatives and bigots being fans of Tolkien works is a special type of jumpscare bcs what are you doing here man? In the franchise about folks from different backgrounds and races come together in brotherhood to vanquish the villain? Where kindness and compassion and sinple happiness were seen as the best ways to keep evil at bay? Where war is not glorified and seen as a grim necessity to the point where the son of the author gor criticised the movies for glorifying the war too much? Where men openly engaged in feminine activities and were open about emotions other than anger? Where multiple characters gender presentation varied from those we normally associate with their gender? Where women were empowered in multiple different ways? Where greed was presented as turning one into a literal monster?Where the villains are all thinly veiled depictions of capitalism? Where care for the enviornment is seen as a given?

[psychoticallytrans]

I do wish that "oppositional sexism" was a more commonly known term. It was coined as part of transmisogyny theory, and is defined as the belief that men and women, are distinct, non-overlapping categories that do not share any traits. If gender was a venn diagram, people who believe in oppositional sexism think that "men" and "women" are separate circles that never touch.

The reason I think that it's a useful term is that it helps a lot with articulating exactly why a lot of transphobic people will call a cis man a girl for wearing nail polish, then turn around and call a trans woman a man. Both of those are enforcement of man and woman as non-overlapping social categories. It's also a huge part of homophobia, with many homophobes considering gay people to no longer really belong to their gender because they aren't performing it to their satisfaction.

It's a large part of the reason behind arguments that men and women can't understand each other or be friends, and/or that either men or women are monoliths. If men and women have nothing in common at all, it would be difficult for them to understand each other, and if all men are alike or all women are alike, then it makes sense to treat them all the same. Enforcing this rift is particularly miserable for women and men in close relationships with each other, but is often continued on the basis that "If I'm not a real man/woman, they won't love me anymore."

One common "progressive" form of oppositional sexism is an idea often put as the "divine feminine", that women are special in a way that men will never understand. It's meant to uplift women, but does so in ways that reinforce the idea that men and women are fundamentally different in ways that can never be reconciled or transcended. There's a reason this rhetoric is hugely popular among both tradwifes and radical feminists. It argues that there is something about women that men will never have or know, which is appealing when you are trying to define womanhood in a way that means no man is or ever has been a part of it.

You'll notice that nonbinary people are sharply excluded from the definition. This doesn't mean it doesn't apply to them, it means that oppositional sexism doesn't believe nonbinary people of any kind exist. It's especially rough on multigender people who are both men and women, because the whole idea of it is that men and women are two circles that don't overlap. The idea of them overlapping in one person is fundamentally rejected.

I think it's a very useful term for talking about a lot of the problems that a lot of queer people face when it comes to trying to carve out a place for ourselves in a society that views any deviation from rigid, binary categories as a failure to perform them correctly.

[autogyne-redacted]

Let's Talk About Security Culture: Why Keeping Secrets is Cool and Sexy

It's a natural impulse -- if you love crime -- to want to talk about how great it is. And if you hate America, it's only natural to want to share your dreams for its future with the rest of tumblr dot com. It can feel brave and transgressive. And there is a drive to share your soul with the world at the heart of social media. Surely I should be posting the most concrete implications of my politics, right? This is the poster's curse.

Security Culture refers to a set of "best practices" developed over the past several decades, largely (in a US context) coming out of radical environmental groups as they faced intense state repression, infiltration and entrapment. If you're not familiar, there's some fascinating crimethinc write ups to give you a window into that world:

Much of it boils down to: don't talk about crimes, past or forthcoming with people who don't need to know about them, and be mindful of the possibility of surveillance and infiltration. And, we can support each other as a community in minimizing risks, with an eye towards enabling bold action rather than getting bogged down in fears and anxieties. The guidelines that make sense for AG-based trouble-makers are different from the guidelines that make sense for posters, but plenty of common principles apply. To speak briefly to our position here as posters:

First, it bears saying that long term anonymity is nearly impossible to maintain. Unless you've never accessed Tumblr without a vpn, and avoided connections with other ppl who can be associated with you/your location, and never shared pictures without scrubbing metadata, and a bunch of other 100% consistent steps, it's trivial for the state to know who you are.

Second, just because something isn't actively being prosecuted now doesn't mean it can't be prosecuted later. The priorities of the state change and a shift in power towards the right or a growth in radical action from the left can suddenly make it a priority to destroy anarchist networks or just find a few ppl to prosecute as examples (who probably weren't that plugged into larger networks before getting arrested). Advocating for specific anti-government crimes or declarations of intent to commit such crimes are likely prosecutable, and even if charges don't stick, they're an easy vector for legal harassment.

Third, it's worth thinking about heat as separate from prosecutability. There are modes of engagement that may not be directly criminalized but signal that you are someone worth watching. Some people choose to be public in ways that make heat unavoidable. But it's worth noting that heat isn't strictly individualized, that it persists over time but also is going to shrink over time.

It's easy on here, ime, to see yourself as a proud member of the crime fandom but not much of a content creator. And it's easy to feel like you've generated an amount of heat where you're locked into that role. But heat you generated 10 years ago is probably pretty well gone. Heat you generated 5 years ago has faded substantially. It's worth thinking about how the world might shift in the coming years and what doors you want to keep open.

The non-individualized nature of heat also means that leaning into the spiciest of anti-state positions will make it a bad idea for people who are acting out those positions end up tied to you. Loudly talking about how "more people should be doing [X/Y/Z]" unfortunately sets you up to remain distant from people who might be doing or thinking about doing such things.

Which brings me back to: keeping secrets is sexy. Not spelling everything out builds intrigue. You can lay out a theoretical position and leave working out the practical implications of that as an exercise for the reader. There's value in opacity. The poster's curse and the drive to confess are extremely convenient for the state, but we can resist them. We can hold dreams in our hearts that we refuse to offer up to the posting spectacle.

[raven-at-the-writing-desk]

Since you mentioned this in an earlier ask, what is your take on feminist Leona? I see people saying things like "consent king" "he drinks his respect women juice" and "leona kingscholar says men ain't shit" but I think those are mainly jokes but I've also seen a lot of for example Leona x reader fanfics where he's a lot nicer to femme Yuus than masc ones. I don't play the game so I don't know how much of a feminist he really is, could you clarify and give your own insights? Ty Miss Raven!!!!!!!

[Referencing this post!]

Admittedly, I am guilty of having made “consent king” jokes but that’s mainly because I think consent + respecting others’ autonomy is very sexy important and it’s slightly funny to have a 185 cm muscular anime cat boy championing the concept. However, I try to avoid making jokes which would imply Leona puts down his own gender or thinks lesser of them because 1) canon doesn't indicate this and 2) it can be hurtful to non-femme Twst fans. Yes, most of the fandom is women--but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make this fandom space welcoming for masculine or nonbinary Twst fans.

Let's delve into a brief history of where feminist!Leona comes from! After that, I'll discuss my own thoughts and feelings about it.

The idea first came into prominence because of an exchange that occurs in Cater's School Uniform vignette. In it, Cater is trying to convince Leona to join him for a party that he's throwing for Rosaria, one of the talking paintings at NRC. At first, Leona refuses--but he quickly changes his tune once Cater mentions Rosaria is a "she/her". Leona states, "Portrait or not, I respect ladies and Rosaria is a lady." Cater then whispers to Kalim (who is shocked that Leona suddenly agreed to come along), "Leona's kingdom is all about being respectful to ladies."

It should be noted that Leona says something slightly different in JP: “Even if it’s a portrait, a woman is a woman.” JP does not have the “I respect ladies” portion; “I respect ladies” was added to EN, which may have further amplified the interpretation that he is a feminist.

Now, as we learn from that vignette, the Sunset Savanna has a culture of "respecting women". In Leona's Ceremonial Robes vignette, he elaborates that, “[Beastwomen are] already way stronger than [beastmen]." Furthermore, Ruggie states in one of his Chats that “Girls have both the grit and the camaraderie to triumph when the goin’ gets tough.” Then, in events like Tamashina Mina and late in book 7, we are told that many of the royal guards are women who volunteer for the positions and it's common for them to have learned martial arts from a young age. From this dialogue, we can glean that the women of Leona's home country are physically strong, strong-willed, and honorable.

With that being said, I think certain interpretations of Leona's "feminism" (a term not actually used by official materials; this is a fandom take) definitely take it a step too far by either assuming Leona treats woman as a special class and/or he dislikes men. Both of those interpretations (if serious and not said as a joke) are owed to a fundamental misunderstanding of what "feminism" is. Feminism is "the belief in full social, economic, and political equality for women." Feminism is NOT misandry (a hatred of men), and nor is it female chauvinism (the belief that women are superior to men)... unless, of course, you're talking about very radicalized forms of thinking. The basic concept of feminism doesn't involve man hate or putting women on a pedestal.

Twst itself appears to go with the basic definition of feminism. As Leona himself states, he doesn't treat anyone special. "I ain't extra nothin' to nobody. As if [women] even need men fawning all over'em."

Leona, whom we know to be arrogant and unwilling to obey others' orders, appears to be more willing to listen to and carry out tasks if there's a woman involved. I already mentioned the case with Rosaria the painting (which proves that his "respecting women" thing extends beyond just beastwomen from his home country). In his Ceremonial Robes, he also grumpily puts on the aforementioned robes and takes a picture of himself in it upon the request of his sister-in-law. But--and this should be stressed--he's not exactly jumping for joy or eager to do so. Instead, Leona cites that "Goin’ against [beastwomen] only brings more trouble.” This indicates annoyance at having to carry out this chore, and gives the impression that Leona's only complying because not doing so would only overcomplicate things for him. He's not an idiot--he knows when to make a strategic retreat if it's going to save him time and effort in the long run. (For example, he immediately surrenders to the Ferrymen in book 6 rather than continue to put up a fight.)

I should note that, like in the earlier definition of feminism I shared, Leona does not simply bend the knee to every single woman. In the first Halloween event, he was still capable of scaring off the Magicam Monsters (some of which have distinctly female voices) without any qualms. He was still fully able to express anger and upset when Eliza, the Ghost Bride, smacked him. "You've got a lot of nerve turnin' me down over some nonsense!" He's also not above tricking the Fairy Queen and her entourage to steal back the special magestone from NRC.

This shows us that Leona doesn't just... "respect women" indiscriminately. If someone is going to be rude and selfish to him, he's going to respond as is appropriate. He's not going to turn a blind eye because of the offending party's gender.

In terms of Yuu interactions (assuming Yuu can be any gender), Leona acts pretty aggressive towards them in their first meeting. Even though it's clearly an accident and Yuu didn't realize they stepped on his tail, Leona is annoyed by the act and them walking away without apologizing or stopping to acknowledge him. He also makes it known that Yuu is magicless, and thus has no way of defending themselves from him. And you know what this man does? He says, "Well, can't say it'd be much fun to hurt someone so helpless. Still gonna do it, though." AND HE THREATENS TO TAKE A TOOTH. His wording, "No one gets to stomp on my tail and just walk away without payin' the price" + him still deciding to attack Yuu desite knowing they are weak/cannot fight back, implies to me that he may have still reacted this way regardless of Yuu's gender. (Key word: MAY. We don't know if this is the truth or not, I am leaving this up to your interpretation.)

Notably, there is a light change between EN and JP versions for Yuu's dialogue choices in response to Leona's threat. The EN dialogue options are far more humorous, but the JP options clearly convey fear (ie Leona is being serious about his threat of bodily harm). The top option is like noises of surprise, like "Eh, eh, eh!!"; the bottom option is along the lines of, "What, I'm going to be hit/beaten!"

There are, in fact, multiple instances where Leona acts callous towards Yuu. He refuses to let Yuu stay in Savanaclaw unless they earn their keep by beating up some mobs. He constantly degrades them by calling them and others he considers weak "herbivore". He has to be goaded into helping us or taking us along on trips instead of automatically caving. It could be argued that he would be more agreeable or polite if fem!Yuu was in these scenarios. And who knows, that might be the case--but again, I don't think he would be egregiously kind. I would like to point out a more direct example of a Leona-fem!Yuu interaction. Leona has interacted with a female Yuu before: Yuuka Hirasaka, our main character for the Episode of Savanaclaw manga. There's some debate over whether or not the NRC students know that Yuuka is a girl since the topic is never mentioned once, but I assume that they are aware because: 1) Yuuka makes no effort to hide her figure or chest; she even wears her blazer open, and 2) she has no motivation to hide her gender; she is capable of defending herself if needed and has a nonchalant personality. Proceeding with the assumption that Yuuka being a girl is a known fact, Leona does not treat her any differently than any other student.

Yuuka seems to experience the same tail-stepping scene as is depicted in game, although we don't see the aftermath of it/if Leona gives her the same threat.

The more telling scene for Yuuka, however, comes when she and her friends arrive in Savanaclaw to investigate. They are confronted by a bunch of mobs that start to pick a fight with them. Like in the game, Leona intervenes (ie he doesn't stop the fight just because Yuuka is a woman) and has them duke it out in a game of spelldrive/magift instead.

And you know what? Leona doesn't hold back just because he's playing against a woman. In fact, he kicks Yuuka's ass and then some. Then he stands over her and tells her to get back up, to keep playing. Leona isn't cutting Yuuka any slack whatsoever. He treats Yuuka the same as the boys she's playing with.

This brings me to my final prominent example of Leona interacting with a woman, which I think best exemplifies what my interpretation of Leona's "feminism" is. In the JP server's 2024 Halloween event Lost in the Book with Nightmare Before Christmas, Sally indicates that she plans on making a meal using the plants from around the cemetery. Leona is at first displeased by this, but then agrees to help her catch snakes, rats, lizards, etc. as meat for the meal. This leads into a conversation about how sad Sally's home life is, which earns her sympathy from the other NRC students. Jade, Riddle, and Epel are shocked at the cruelty that Sally faces. Jade volunteers to take the doctor out for Sally, and Epel even tries to convince Leona to help him rough up Dr. Finkelstein. But Leona just smirks and tells them Sally's not in any need of their "help"; isn't she the one who slipped the doctor a "drink"? Riddle scolds him for this "ungentlemanly" behavior and Epel refuses to believe that the "kind Sally" would do something like use poison. Leona was able to smell the deadly nightshade on her and deduce that Sally slipped some to her guardian and then slipped out on her own. She's not a damsel in distress--she's resourceful. Sally used her brains and not brute force to rescue herself from a bad situation. (We know that this would deeply resonate with Leona because he has been struggling his entire life to have his own merits recognized.) Leona praises Sally for her cunning and goes so far as to offer her his arm and tell her that he's looking forward to this evening's dinner.

In this situation, could it not be said that Jade, Riddle, and Epel were the ones assuming Sally is weak that Leona was the one who saw her true worth? I'm of course not accusing anyone here of being sexist. Society socializes us to see women as the "fairer sex" in need of protection and aid--but isn't Leona being more equitable by not underestimating Sally because of her gender?

That brings me to my conclusion. Leona respects women, no doubt about that. However, that's NOT a blanket statement. He clearly knows how to separate who is worthy of his respect and who isn't, and then he acts accordingly. Yes, he is polite, slightly softer, and more willing to listen to women he knows (his sister-in-law), women who haven't offended him/are just existing (Rosaria), and woman who have demonstrated their own strengths to him (Sally). He doesn’t become a completely different character just to bend to the whims of women. Those who have acted in ways to earn his ire, woman or not, will be treated as such (Magicam Monsters, Eliza, even Yuu when they/she enters his territory and/or steps on his tail). At the same time, I don't believe he thinks that women are delicate flowers that need special treatment (as we see with how he handles Sally + the Yuus and, more specifically, Yuuka). If anything, the women from his home country have demonstrated that they can be strong and self-sufficient. Why would he feel the need to go out of his way to be extremely lenient with the women he is around?

Lastly, nothing in official materials implies Leona treats men significantly worse than women. If he seems exceedingly rude to men, it’s most likely the result of the main cast (the characters Leona most often interacts with) being guys. If we were to compare how he treats his peers and how he treats women who have irritated him, I would say the behavior isn’t that different.

I know that was a long post but 😅 Hopefully I was able to articulate my thoughts well enough… May you find it helpful in forming your own opinion, Anon!

[life-is-more-than-just-a-game]

♠️ AiB males playing "7 minutes in heaven" ♠️

A/N: A friend of mine and I came up with this topic very randomly. Still, I think this can get interesting and also kind of funny, so I wanna give it a try at least. Are you in? of course you are, hehe! 🤭

Summary: Everyone knows The Beach and of course next to parties, there will be enough time for some funny games you and the other members can play together. Beside dangerous games, someone mentioned "7 minutes in heaven".

7 minutes in heaven- Rules: Two chosen people are getting into a private, dark room. Doors are closed and now the both have to find a way to pass the time- that's it.

Characters: Aguni, Arisu, Chishiya, Karube, Niragi

POV: gn!neutral

Warnings: Not given.

A g u n i

Tatta: "..." Chishiya: "..." y/n: "... So ... you are playing with us?"

Literally everyone is in shock and irritated when Aguni is joining the group for playing this dumb game.

Niragi would like to say "How pathetic" but since Aguni is not only his leader, but also attends the game himself, he prefers to keep his mouth shut.

It should come as no surprise that hardly anyone don't want to be locked in a dark room with him.

He always exudes something threatening and the fact that he is extremely radical in some situations doesn't really make it any better.

Arisu and Karube aren't keen on spending seven minutes alone with him- that's how everyone feels, except maybe Niragi, "Last Boss" and you.

He never did anything to you.

However, you don't have much to do with each other either.

Which doesn't mean he didn't notice you.

He can tolerate your presence and you can tolerate his.

This is also the reason why the two of you are ultimately put in the room together.

An: "Sorry." y/n: "Don't be, I'm really fine with that."

You are not afraid of him, just very respectful.

The fact that he is so quiet and says so little about himself makes you believe that there is more to his character than most people would probably believe.

It's risky, but once you've arrived in the room - where you've both found a place to sit or lie down - you just ask him.

y/n: "Tell me … what actually made you the person you are now?" Aguni: "You really try to start a conversation with me?" y/n: "Sure. I have nothing left to lose."

It gets quiet between you for a moment.

Aguni: "Me neither."

Well, that hits differently, but:

Aguni: "Not interested in idle Chit-Chat. I don't need someone listening to me." y/n: "Alright ... I'm sorry." Aguni: "No ... I am."

You don't exactly know what he is sorry for but you can tell by his voice that he means it.

Deep down he would like to talk to you.

And he is pleased that someone is interested in him and his story.

But he doesn't want to show weakness- and anyway, it's just not the right time to open up to anyone about it.

A r i s u

He's a clever boy, but one has to explain the rules for him twice ...

It's so easy but, what? He? Alone in a room with someone who is allowed to do everything he wants?

Arisu: "Didn't you guys say this game isn't dangerous at all?" Kuina: "I ... don't think someone wants to kill anyone here." Niragi: "Uh-" Chishiya: "Please, do us a favor and keep your fantasies to yourself."

*Gulps*

However, he breathes a sigh of relief when he realizes that he is being put in a room with you.

And after that ... he gets nervous.

Damn, he thinks you are so beautiful/handsome- you make him literally SPEACHLES!

Speaks to himself in his head: it's only seven minutes, time will pass quickly.

So, the both of you go in the room ...

Aguni: "Don't forget, the room is next to us- we will hear everything."

Yeah, actually, they will hear nothing, because Arisu and you are just sitting there, towards each other, in silence.

You both are so shy, that's cute! UwU

But he tries his best to start a conversation with you at least.

Arisu: "Well, this ... uhm ..." y/n: "I can't hear you, it's too dark ..."

With that, you finally got him- like, he's going to laugh, because he knows that quote exactly.

Arisu: "Did you seriously quoted Spongebob?!" y/n: "No, I quoted Patrick Star."

And that's it.

Yes, you guys are sticking to the Spongebob references and holy, time suddenly goes by so fast.

The others are simply shocked and can't believe the conversation they're hearing …

Well ... you can't take another fandom if you want to if you can't relate with it but, hm ... shame on you ...

C h i s h i y a

The calmest and most composed of all.

If you're nervous, rest assured: he's not.

Kuina wouldn't have put you two in the same room if she didn't know he had a thing for you- but don't expect him to show.

Kuina: "Have fun you two!" Chishiya: "Be sure we will have." y/n: "Uh- will we?" Chishiya: "We will see."

Well, luckily everyone defines “fun” differently.

He laughed at you when you bumped into something as you entered the room.

y/n: "Ouch!" Chishiya: "Watch out." y/n: "IT'S DARK INSIDE HERE, I'M NOT AN OWL!"

He would be willing to help you, but he's no more an owl than you are.

Chishiya: "Ouch!" y/n: "Watch out." Chishiya: "Maybe I deserve that."

Once you have settled down somewhere, peace and quiet return.

For a very long time.

Chishiya doesn't speak if he doesn't have to.

And he is patient.

A person with lots of time.

But you aren't in here with him to remain silent.

y/n: "Haven't you told me we will have fun in here?" Chishiya: "Question is, what kind of fun you think of."

Thanks god it's dark inside here so he can see how your face is turning red now.

Chishiya: "Did you know: Owls can turn their heads by up to 270 degrees, as they have twice as many neck vertebrae as humans." Kuina: "You should give y/n compliments instead of boring them with your knowledge." y/n: "UP TO 270 DEGREES?!" Chishiya: "You know, Kuina- you aren't in the room, so leave us alone."

K a r u b e

The brother has no inhibitions. When he hears that you should go into the room with him, he stands up, grabs you by the wrist and pulls you behind him, no hesitation.

The other players already have a premonition of what's going to happen with you two, which is why they deliberately stay away from the door.

The only thing is, they are wrong.

You aren't about to start a wild make-up-session.

Instead, Karube simply leads you to the window of the room, where he quietly and secretly draws the curtains.

y/n: "You know, this is against the rules ..." Karube: "Rules are made to be broken."

In any case, the little romantic has a plan for how you can make the seven minutes pass quickly together.

Karube: "Have you ever noticed how brightly the stars shine outside at night in this world?" y/n: "Honestly, no. I … I've never really felt like looking at the stars in this world. I never had someone to do that with, plus ... it kinda makes me sad, 'cause of all the people we have already lost and kill ourselves." Karube: "But the deceased can be better remembered in the dark and in peace."

That leaves you speechless.

You know that Karube can be a bit of a jerk.

But you also know that he's not stupid.

And you really love like how kindhearted he can be if he wants to.

Karube: "So, seven minutes to just stand here and watch the stars getting brighter together- will you join me?"

You smile at him and this is your answer, before you turn your head in the direction of the window- whispering a quiet "Wow" while your eyes are getting a litte teary.

y/n: "You are a blessing, Karube ... you really are ..."

N i r a g i

Niragi is the most annoying partner you can get from any player.

Unlike Chishiya, he wouldn't talk about any 'useless' knowledge, but he would be nagging and complaining.

And above all, he would be offended because he doesn't get what he wants from you.

Niragi: "Come on, seven minutes would be enough for a-" y/n: "I said no and no means no!"

But who would he be if he just accepted it.

y/n: "And anyways, it wouldn't be much fun if we aren't able to see each other ... right?"

You can then hear a choking noise from outside, which is uttered by Tatta.

Nevertheless, Niragi gives you the point and just sits back from that now on.

At least for a while until he gets bored again.

Niragi: "And now? Are we just sitting here, doing nothing at all?" y/n: "We can play “I see something you don't see”." Niragi: "Are you fucking kidding me?" y/n: "Alright, then let's call it "Guess what I see"." Niragi: "Stop it." y/n: "Well, than stop nagging, you can't be bored enough then."

Just be happy about the fact he do like a lot.

We all now Niragi is none who is listening to a "no".

If he wouldn't care about you … just think about what he did to Usagi …

Still, he is happy when things are finally over.

Karube: "So, how does it feel like to be dumped?" Niragi: "You should know the best." Karube: "Sorry boy, none has ever rejected me."

[fuckyeahisawthat]

There are so many places in the Villeneuve Dune adaptations where he just...takes all the narrative pieces that Frank Herbert laid out and subtly rearranges them into something that tells the story better--that creates dramatic tension where you need it, communicates the themes and message of the book more clearly, or corrects something in the text that contradicts or undermines what Herbert said he was trying to say.

The fedaykin are probably my favorite example of this. I just re-read a little part of the book and got smacked in the face with how different they are.

(under the cut for book spoilers and length)

The fedaykin in the book are Paul's personal followers, sort of his personal guard. They show up after his legend has already started growing (the word doesn't appear in the book until chapter 40) and they are people who have specifically dedicated themselves to fighting for him, and right from the moment they're introduced there is a kind of implied fanaticism to their militancy that's a bit uncomfortable to read. They're the most ardent believers in Paul's messianic status and willing to die for him. (They are also, as far as you can tell from the text, all men.)

In the book, as far as I can remember (I could be forgetting some small detail but I don't think so) there is no mention of armed resistance to colonialism on Arrakis before Paul shows up. As far as we know, he created it. ETA: Okay I actually went back and checked on this and while we hear about the Fremen being "a thorn in the side" of the Harkonnens and we know that they are good fighters, we don't see anything other than possibly one bit of industrial sabotage. The book is very clear that the organized military force we see in the second half was armed and trained by Paul. This is exacerbated by the two-year time jump in the book, which means we never see how Paul goes from being a newly deposed ex-colonial overlord running for his life to someone who has his own private militia of people ready to give their lives for him.

The movie completely flips all these dynamics on their head in ways that add up to a radical change in meaning.

The fedaykin in the movie are an already-existing guerrilla resistance movement on Arrakis that formed long before Paul showed up. Literally the first thing we learn about the Fremen, less that two minutes into the first movie, is that they are fighting back against the colonization and exploitation of their home and have been for decades.

The movie fedaykin also start out being the most skeptical of the prophecy about Paul, which is a great choice from both a political and a character standpoint. Of course they're skeptical. If you're part of a small guerrilla force repeatedly going up against a much bigger and stronger imperial army...you have to believe in your own agency. You have to believe that it is possible to win, and that this tiny little chip in the armor of a giant terrifying military machine that you are making right now will make a difference in the end. These are the people who are directly on the front lines of resisting oppression. They are doing it with their own sweat, blood and ingenuity, and they are not about to wait around for some messiah who may never come.

From a character standpoint, this is really the best possible environment you could put Paul Atreides in if you want to keep him humble. He doesn't get any automatic respect handed to him due to title or birthright or religious belief. He has to prove himself--not as any kind of savior but as a good fighter and a reliable member of a collective political project. And he does. This is an environment that really draws out his best qualities. He's a skilled fighter; he's brave (sometimes recklessly so); he's intensely loyal to and protective of people he cares about. He is not too proud to learn from others and work hard in an egalitarian environment where he gets no special treatment or extra glory. The longer he spends with the fedaykin the more his allegiance shifts from Atreides to Fremen, and the more skeptical he himself becomes about the prophecy. This sets up the conflict with Jessica, which comes to a head before she leaves for the south. And his political sincerity--that he genuinely comes to believe that these people deserve liberation from all colonial forces and his only role should be to help where he can--is what makes the tragedy work. Because in the end we know he will betray all these values and become the exact thing he said he didn't want to be.

There's another layer of meaning to all this that I don't know if the filmmakers were even aware of. ETA: rescinding my doubt cause based on some of Villeneuve's other projects I'm pretty sure he could work it out. Given the time period (1960s) and Herbert's propensity for using Arabic or Arabic-inspired words for aspects of Fremen culture, it seems very likely that the made-up word fedaykin was taken from fedayeen, a real Arabic word that was frequently used untranslated in American news media at the time, usually to refer to Palestinian armed resistance groups.

Fedayeen is usually translated into English as fighter, guerrilla, militant or something similar. The translation of fedaykin that Herbert provides in Dune is "death commando"...which is a whole bucket of yikes in my opinion, but it's not entirely absurd if we're assuming that this fake word and the real word fedayeen function in the same way. A more literal translation of fedayeen is "self-sacrificer," as in willing, intentional self-sacrifice for a political cause, up to and including sacrificing your life.

If you apply this logic to Dune, it means that Villeneuve has actually shifted the meaning of this word in-universe, from fighters who are willing to sacrifice themselves for Paul to fighters who are willing to sacrifice themselves for their people. And the fedaykin are no longer a group created for Paul but a group that Paul counts himself as part of, one member among equals. Which is just WILDLY different from what's in the book. And so much better in my opinion.

[a-very-tired-jew]

Oh, that explains why I'm getting hate today. STA made a post about me. They must be really upset that a forensic scientist posting reasonable and measured takes, explaining how forensic science works, using their experience as a colloquially known "death expert" to debunk things, calling out propaganda, calling out antisemitism, and using their years of experience as a professor and scientist to address misinformation is undermining their entire grift.

But that's STA's MO. They have to lie about the content of a blog they don't like to villainize it. Especially if that blog isn't a massive vitriolic cesspit that instead offers nuanced takes and doesn't take radical accelerationist positions that are supported by appeals to emotion. For STA, if you come back to my blog, remember how you pretended to be an Israeli then got caught using a bad translator that used niqqud and put out stuff that modern Hebrew speakers said was wrong? Remember how you then retconned your backstory to being an Israeli-ex pat who moved to CT because of the war? Which still didn't explain why you couldn't actually write Hebrew like someone who grew up in Israel? So you then retconned again to someone whose family moved when they were a teen to CT? And that another retcon still didn't explain how you failed at faking speaking Hebrew so badly? Then when people checked with the CT communities and no one could verify an Israeli ex-pat family according to your backstory you retconned to just being "ethnically Jewish"?

Remember how you pretended to be a "Zionist" but were just pushing stereotypical Kahanist rhetoric to try and get Zionists to agree with you, and when jumblr called you out you then became a raging antisemite and got your original blog deactivated by staff? You remember that, right?

I guess your grift is going well since you're sending people my way, but I'm loving that they have to make throwaways to send me hate. Have fun with that.

And for anyone coming to my blog to spread said hate and attack me, a big red warning sign that an account is not run by an actual Jew is if they call other Jews they disagree with Nazis. We have words for that kind of person, Nazi is not one of them because the core of Nazism requires antisemitism. Only a Jew-faker who has a history of Jew faking and got their original blog nuked by staff would call a Jew a Nazi.

Notice how they don't call out Christian Zionists and focus solely on calling Jews the "real" Nazis? Yeah...that should be your first and only moment to realize stoptheantisemitism isn't who or what they say they are.

Unfortunately I know none of this will be accepted by their fan base and that respective circle of antisemites. But hey, one can hope. Right?

(Also, for clarity; the receipts are out there but the original blog that had them deactivated for personal reasons. Some of them are easily found whereas others are not. We, meaning jumblr, didn't screenshot and catalogue everything during their initial blog because we didn't think that the grift would be this bad. Personally, I yell at myself for not following proper forensic practice and take screenshots for evidence sake. I hate using personal experiences as anecdotal evidence, but that's where we are at. We're in a they said/they said situation. Which is why this is still going on)

[avelera]

Thank you for talking about how Viktor wouldn't be mean to Jayce! I do really agree that fandom really tries to boil them down to their basics or preexisting tropes and it really sucks to see people think he'd really insult Jayce or hit him with his cane. Something I started thinking about after I read that post is that so much of the cast are Zaunite and nearly every one of them are sharp-tongued, and so maybe that's why people think Viktor would be mean? But that doesn't really take into account his personality or how he might feel he has to present himself as someone from Zaun living in Piltover.

Yeah the "hitting with the cane" trope definitely feels OOC for him to me. I could maybe see him tapping or hooking Jayce to get his attention but... even then. We rarely see Viktor use his cane or crutch for anything but their intended purpose.

If I may extrapolate out, I find it notable that when he has the cane pre-time skip he leaves it aside when possible, like when standing at the blackboard, and tries to mask his disability. I know for many people with disabilities, they love their aids, and the aids given them freedom of movement and from pain, but I would venture to say that Viktor does not see his crutch or his cane all that favorably.

I think Viktor sees his disability aids as necessary indignities that he'd rather do without if he could. See how quickly he drops his crutch once he tests out being able to run post-experimentation. He probably only goes back and gets it, rather than abandoning it there, because he wants to continue to hide the experiments he's doing.

Combine that with Jayce noting how he saw his leg as a "weakness" and I think there is further evidence that Viktor sees his crutch or cane rather negatively.

Which is a roundabout way of saying, I don't think Viktor would use his crutch or his cane as a hook or a bludgeon against Jayce not only because he's arguably the most pacifistic character in the whole show, but also because I don't think he really likes using it or thinking about it for anything but its intended purpose of assisting his mobility. I think Jayce views Viktor's crutch more favorably than Viktor does, he sees it as a part of Viktor in a positive way, an extension of him.

As for the topic of Zaun, I do agree that I think some fics give Viktor more of a, hmm, "class consciousness" around Zaun than he's shown to have?

For example:

Viktor only ever calls it "the undercity" in S1. Calling it Zaun at all is something that radicals like Silco do, it's even implied that Silco is kind of resurrecting a long-dead name for the area as part of his separatist movement, so it might not even be in wide use beyond Silco's circles, like Viktor may not have even really heard of it as a common term in S1. In addition, if "Zaun" is a politically charged term, I wouldn't be surprised if Viktor would avoid calling it that at all, because he's not a separatist or a radical, he's just from there and he thinks of it as "the undercity". Viktor is not shown as someone from the undercity who really wants to rock the boat in Piltover politically and he's certainly not a separatist, he wants to help the undercity as a disadvantaged community within Piltover.

The only time I think we see Viktor call it "Zaun" is somewhat in the abstract in S2, when he admires Vander's vision for "Zaun as it could have been". To me, it felt like he was discussing Zaun as a distant ideal rather than as the place where he was currently located or a political identity he identified with. He admires that other people who are more political than him had a cohesive vision for something the undercity that Viktor knows could become.

Viktor is actually incredibly apolitical, which is interesting when you consider he was assistant to Heimerdinger, who was head of the Council. He considers Jayce's time as a Councilor a "waste of our time", it never even occurs to him to use that political power to improve lives in the undercity, instead of science. In general Viktor tends to be pretty blind to other discipline besides science when it comes to bettering the world, and is even dismissive of them, which I think is a bit narrow-minded of him to be honest.

Viktor's dismissiveness towards anything that isn't science when it comes to improving lives is certainly a factor in how his and Jayce's relationship becomes strained in S1, he never sees Jayce's work as a Councilor as potentially offering a broader avenue for achieving their goals to help the undercity, not once, which is actually rather baffling and interesting that he has this blindspot (possibly because of my theory that at a certain point in S1, once he knows he's rapidly dying, Viktor is only using "helping the undercity" as a smokescreen to others but mostly himself to cover up his shame for the fact he really just wants to use Hextech to save himself while the undercity has become secondary, but he doesn't want to admit that. That also explains his shame when he sees Sky's notes and realizes he's been trying to save himself to the exclusion of all else, that he's lost sight of his larger goals and dreams.)

Even when Viktor starts the cult in the undercity, it's not a politically motivated enclave, he doesn't describe it as part of a Zaunite movement. It really is just posed as a refuge for those in need, separate entirely I would argue from the Piltover vs. Zaun conflict, unlike Ekko's Firelights who provide shelter AND do community action and freedom fighting. Indeed, Viktor heals Salo, a Councilor, the most privileged of the privileged from Piltover. I'd argue this is an additional sign that he is "colorblind" when it comes to the conflict between the two cities.

Finally, I would argue that Viktor is from a generation that somewhat precedes the class conflicts and brewing civil war between Piltover and the undercity. I think he's from a generation where the cities were still linked enough that they were more like the "good" and the "bad" side of the tracks. He was smart enough to get out and make something of himself in the big city, he has a goal of helping to uplift those he left behind, but he sees them as one city still even if he has sympathy later for a separatist movement. The way he talks about the undercity to me feels less like a separate entity and more a particular disadvantaged community within Piltover.

Anyway, I've gone off on like three crazy wild tangents based on your reply. Thank you so much! I'm glad you enjoyed that post! And I agree, of all the Zaunites, Viktor is actually quite different from the others and that is really interesting to explore!

[rebellum]

Not to be all "I have a degree and I know more than you" but it really bothers me how the people on tumblr who are against the word transandrophobia being coined talk about feminism because they're all just like. So wrong. It's like half the time they're doing 1970s radical feminism and half the time they're just making shit up. Like jfc read a book watch a YouTube video feminism isn't what it's your heart it refers to several theories you have to LEARN ABOUT if you've never read or listened to anything about feminism then this is what you get. People who think the patriarchy doesn't harm men, and people who think "system of oppression" just means "people in power doing things to people without power" etc. Like words have meanings. You have to learn those meanings. You aren't engaging with feminist theory, you're just making shit up. If you don't know what Foucaultian discourse is, which is part of THE basic theories of contemporary feminism, if you don't know what performativity is (no, it's not performance), then you need to learn those before you engage with the theories. Like, fuck, man, I totally get being too tired from work or too disabled or whatever to engage with learning theory, but if that's the case then you should just say "I don't know much about the theory" instead of "I know that 'intersectionality' means people have more than 1 marginalised identity because my heart says it's true". Like, we aren't just saying random shit here, established theories arise from meaningful conversation and engagement with philosophy, lived experience, and research. You can at least put a video about feminism on in the background while you fucking video game.

[cipheramnesia]

Hmm, not to detract from the absolutely wild display of racism and transphobia and general out of control bigotry directed at Imane Khelif from the radical feminism peanut gallery or nothing. But and however.

The rush in progressive spaces to attribute characteristics to her, like elevated testosterone and/or being intersex, speaks to a need for better nuance and delicacy on our end. It's complicated because we want to support intersex people against the appalling amount of institutional and general violence and disenfranchisement they experience. And knowing the way hormone levels vary from person is important in understanding how sex and gender aren't nearly as binary as most people assume. The general intentions were good, and shouldn't be discouraged. More like, just that we ought to take a minute to figure out if we know what we're talking about.

Because on the other side of the radfem peanut gallery is rushing in to assume personal information we don't know, but which we accept as contributing to her abilities and appearance. That is to say, there are unexamined racial and intersexist biases underlying the unspoken consensus that her body was somehow uniquely different that it needed to be explained by something other than "this is how people who train extensively for the sport of boxing tend to look."

That doesn't preclude her being intersex or whatnot, only that the foundation of the radfem argument rests on "this woman's appearance is deviant," in ways connecting back to racism and attitudes towards intersex bodies. And when we inadvertently buy into the foundational premise of their bigotry, we also inadvertently perpetuate the inherent bigotry in the assumption, by responding with "that deviant body of a woman of color is intersex."

Anyway, the point I'm trying to get around to here is Imane Khelif looks like a boxer. She's tall and has the kind of muscles a boxer has, regardless of hormones or being intersex or race or anything else. Being intersex comes in many shapes of bodies, the same as perisex bodies. But assuming a body must be intersex because we feel like it confirms deep rooted prejudice about what intersex bodies are is also an expression of that bias.

These things are rife with complications built on centuries of prejudice and systemic oppression, and there will never be a way to talk about it that's simple, perfectly true forever, and easy. It means sometimes we have to take a frustrating amount of time to try and unpack what's happening, and maybe even not say anything at all but probably also try to resist too many epic slams on terfs that are like inadvertently slamming our other disenfranchised groups, basically. I think. I'm not sure I did this very well either. But those undercurrents of bias affect us so like... be mindful and try to be kind.

[genderkoolaid]

Just saw a post on my dash claiming you're a terf psyop because some terf on Twitter has the same username as you. I just wanted to warn you in case you haven't seen it yourself. You two having the same name is the only evidence given in the post. Nothing else. And I frankly don't believe it for a second. But other people are spreading this and seem to be accepting it as the truth. And I think it's messed up, and I'm worried about you. You don't have to respond to this at all btw; I just wouldn't have felt right about seeing this and not telling you.

Well this is wild lmao. I'm presuming both of these are talking about the same person.

—

—

Obviously that is not me. Mostly because I am not in fact a TERF (or from the UK). I chose "genderkoolaid" to be ironic because transphobes use that phrase.

But also because, if I was a TERF psyop, why in the world would I use the same URL for both my secret evil psyop account and my blatant TERF account?

She seems to have developed an entire conspiracy theory around transandrophobia in which she starts with the idea that everyone who talks about it is a secret TERF, and works backwards to twist anything anyone ever says into being proof of her conspiracy:

—

^ Her pinned post is... something!

Anyone can find the worst posts in the transandrophobia tag and use it as proof the whole thing is transmisognistic, because obviously transmisogyny remains a widespread problem and no space or group is exempt. But she doesn't even use those, really. Any post that talks about how transmascs suffer from misogyny, or just suffer in general, is apparently saying trans men are women and should detransition.

It's wild that she seems to understand that radical feminism relies on this man bad/woman good binary, AND that TERFs target trans men for conversion therapy, but does not seem to understand that... this is not that?

It's only somewhat included in the first screenshot, but the third image in that trio is an image with Joan of Arc which many of you have probably seen:

... which does nothing but contrast claims about masculinity with a person whose murder was justified because of their invalid masculinity. But of course, by masculinity we must REALLY mean... cis womanhood! That makes sense!

She also apparently believes that me describing myself as FTMTX is code for me being a detransitioner:

—

Like, this is genuinely just conspiracism & exorsexism. She seems one step away from claiming TMRAs are all Satanists kidnapping children.

To give her credit for one thing, though: She tags these as "broeddels" which, while useless as a term, is a very good pun.

Don't harass this person, primarily because harassment is bad but also because it seems like she is not in the best space and is obsessing over this as a result.

& if you want to actually support trans women, consider raising awareness of Rue, a Black teenage trans girl who recently survived a stabbing in Houston.

[haggishlyhagging]

Sexual Politics is out of print. The Dialectic of Sex is out of print. What women have to do is come to terms with the fact that we live in a society that simply censors better than state censorship. People have got to come to terms with the power of the publishing industry and the media in controlling thought and expression. They have to understand that it is an issue of power and money and people have to be less passive in relation to books. People have to take their money which they don't have much of and they have to buy books by feminist writers. They have to develop a much more sophisticated understanding of how the book industry works. A hard-cover book like Letters from a War Zone was virtually published dead. If it's still in bookstores in two months it will be a miracle. They have to understand that everything that they hear all the time about how everything can be published in this country is a lie and that part of the social function of the publishing industry is to buy up the rights to and then obliterate certain books so that nobody can get them. They have to stop thinking that they live in the liberal dreamworld of equality where fairness has already been achieved. It hasn't been achieved. You can be equal in your heart but it doesn't make you equal in the world. I think that the refusal to understand what happens to books by women goes along with this liberal refusal to acknowledge that power is a reality and we're not the ones who have it. What I'm saying is that women have got to start facing reality. You cannot build any kind of movement for change on wishful thinking. The wishful thinking is that we already have what it is we want and what it is we need. We don't have it. Women who want to write and communicate, which in a big country is hard to do—it's getting harder for them, not easier. There isn't more access, there is less access. People have got to take the economics of the publishing industry seriously and understand that very few writers will survive who do not write according to the demands of the marketplace, by which I mean essentially the demands of turning out books that you can consume as passively as a television show. That's sort of the standard.

-Andrea Dworkin, “Dworkin on Dworkin” in Radically Speaking: Feminism Reclaimed

[morlock-holmes]

I often see people talking about how capitalism is great because it's the best way to get people what they need.

But, okay, so like in a Capitalist free market, supply and demand are always going to be somewhat divorced from need for as long as labor itself is subject to supply and demand, right?

I mean, am I crazy here? This seems inevitable to me but a lot of advocates for capitalism act like it isn't true for reasons I can't understand.

Like, I don't make much money, because I do unskilled work. Unskilled work is work where you can train the vast majority of people to be competent at the job within a few days (As opposed to, say, a neurosurgeon, who needs more than 18 hours of training shifts). This means that the supply of labor is high even relative to large demand, which means that in turn the price at which I can sell my labor is low.

What sort of makes me itch is that if I phrase things like that without any political agenda, most evangelists for capitalism will say, "Yeah, broadly you're exactly right."

Okay, but that means that if money is a signal of "need", then I have less ability to signal need than a skilled worker.

Suppose me and Jeff Bezos both get the same kind of cancer, and we both have the same odds of survivability from the same treatment. The treatment costs one million dollars.

Are we to say that the fact that I don't have one million dollars indicates that I need cancer treatment less than Jeff Bezos, who would pay without thinking?

That's a completely perverse definition of what it means to need things!

The only way to get out of that would be to advocate for a radical blank slate theory, in which every single person is equally capable of doing a high skilled job, and has consciously chosen not to do so.

This is just, like, obviously not the case. Like, at the very least you have to deal with unmedicated schizophrenics, people with learning disabilities, people getting chemotherapy or other medical treatments that make them too weak to work, and furthermore a lot of people who are the most "rah rah" for capitalism are also somehow the least inclined towards blank slate theory, and are often advocates of fairly rigid views of human potential who are happy to argue that some people are just incapable of doing skilled work.

But like... Because of how labor works Capitalism is going to be not very good at fulfilling the needs of unskilled workers, even if the market is otherwise working in a very idealized and efficient fashion, let alone the world we actually have with things like inherited wealth.

Now, I would argue that capitalism can be bad at fulfilling the needs of low-skill workers even when society is producing enough surplus that it is possible to fulfill their needs.

PS - This doesn't mean that supply and demand are entirely unmoored from human desire either, that's not what I'm arguing.